That's 11 unless I have lost the ability to count and then they include the following:

Gorilla
(Gorilla gorilla)

Extinct: Almost
DNA preservation: 5/5
Suitable surrogate: 5/5

The first species to be brought back from extinction will most likely be one that is alive today. Conservationists are freezing tissue samples from
some threatened species, so clones could be created with the help of a closely related surrogate species if a suitable habitat becomes available. For
gorillas, the surrogate would be the chimpanzee.

But then if you only 'make' 1 or 2 then the gene pool is going to be very weak.

Bringing 'em back is less of a problem than keeping them alive...the theory is willing but the tech is weak

Late last year we resurrected the extinct Pyrennean Ibex.

The Pyrenean ibex, a form of wild mountain goat, was officially declared extinct in 2000 when the last-known animal of its kind was found dead in
northern Spain. Shortly before its death, scientists preserved skin samples of the goat, a subspecies of the Spanish ibex that live in mountain
ranges across the country, in liquid nitrogen. Using DNA taken from these skin samples, the scientists were able to replace the genetic material in
eggs from domestic goats, to clone a female Pyrenean ibex, or bucardo as they are known. It is the first time an extinct animal has been cloned.

The little fella lasted for 7 minutes due to breathing difficulties. It seems our technology still answers to Nature. We can theoretically bring
extinct critters back to life without having the tech to keep them alive or provide mates...

scientists still face considerable hurdles before bringing an extinct species back into the wild is anything more than a conservation pipe dream.
Firstly, even if the cloned female ibex had lived, she would have had no males to breed with. On top of this, there are other questions about
resurrecting extinct species: can enough genetic diversity be created in cloned individuals?

More likely they would end up in a lab somewhere. I don't agree with cloning species that natural selection did away with but I do see the gorilla
being a good idea.

I can't agree that natural selection did away with many of those creatures, no one can really tell how long we've been wiping species of this planet
and I'm certain we weren't naturally selected to 'Do away with'.

Speaking for myself, I have no issues of conscience regarding the reviving of most extinct life forms. When we speak of nature 'choosing' to see
them extinguished, we are acting as if nature was a sentient, benevolent zoo keeper that somehow acted on someone's behalf by killing them off to
begin with.

The premise of 'natural selection' also makes a leap by suggesting that mere random chance is smart enough not to be questioned.

So what if we someday manage to clone a dinosaur? It hardly compares to what we are doing in bug labs today.

As for the Neanderthal? That's a little different because you almost have to make one to understand exactly how it fits into the grand scheme. Is it
smart enough to be considered human? Or is it just far enough distant to make it comfortable for us to 'use' them as we do other critters... for lab
experiments, etc.?

In fact, how we handle a group of reborn Neanderthals might play well as a preview of how we are viewed by an advanced species of ET.

That in itself would be enough to justify the experiment... IF we were smart enough to learn anything from it.

Well, keep in mind that at least for the more recent species in these groups, there are still empty ecological niches.

Wooly mammoths undoubtedly had a key part in the ecosystems in which they lived - hell, the modern elephant is basically a walking, breathing
ecosystem all in itself, I can only imagine what the wooly played in the taiga and tundra.

There are plants still alive that apparently depended on the Moa and Dodo for seed dispersal. Reintroducing these birds could help bring those plants,
and other species relying on them, back from the brink.

The thylacine's ecological role has largely been co-opted by the dingo on mainland australia, but only feral dogs would be competitive in Tasmania or
Papua. And nobody wants feral dogs running around.

Similar story with the glyptodont - It's probably had its role filled by feral goats. However, the giant ground sloth currently has nothing that
would replace it - and given their recent extinction, there's no telling what kind of ecosystems are still around for which a gigantic browser was
integral.

About the most useless ones on that list would be the Neanderthal (their ecological role is occupied, to say the least, and to say nothing of the
moral concerns of a manufactured human).

Personally I think that instead of flapping our hands over the idea of re-creating megatherium or the woolly mammoth, we should use this technology to
bring back or preserve species extinct within the last century. There's no doubt that the woolly rhino died out because of the end of the ice age,
while there are numerous other critters clearly rendered extinct by human idiocy.

Hell. Bring bad the atlas bear, I'd rather see that sucker than the short-faced bear.

As for the Neanderthal? That's a little different because you almost have to make one to understand exactly how it fits into the grand scheme. Is it
smart enough to be considered human? Or is it just far enough distant to make it comfortable for us to 'use' them as we do other critters... for lab
experiments, etc.?

Altho i think it would be very interesting to see mammuths and what not to wander around i also think that the impact on the environment would be far
to great...
We already see it now with animals being put where they dont belong..

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.